The idea: There seems to be something in progressives' DNA that
inclines them to want to centralize, globalize, homogenize. It had its
value once, but it's rarely appropriate any more. And the better
answer, helping communities revitalize themselves, with no strings
attached, will be hard for progressives to learn to do.
I mentioned last week that, at
my recent meeting on community-based renewable energy, one
rabble-rouser wanted such projects banned in favour of
centrally-managed, efficient 'wind farms'. Turns out he's a capital-l
Liberal, and a self-professed small-l liberal. Our former alderman
wanted to merge our exurban/rural community with Canada's two fastest
growing cities next door to make a super-regional community that would
'have everything'. This misguided soul was also a self-professed
liberal. In one Canadian community, a proposal by a prominent liberal
to close all the community centres and replace them with regional Super
Wellness Centres has, thankfully, been vetoed by clearer heads. The
very pragmatic and progressive Peter Singer, writer of One World,
likes the idea of a single, global government replacing the nations
whose boundaries are largely historical accident anyway. Socialists
have always had a passion for centralized, planned societies. What is
it about progressives that makes them so averse to the idea of
autonomous, self-managed communities?
In my earlier post
on Balkanization I mentioned four reasons why small community political
units tend to get supplanted by larger, more centralized regional and
state governments:
- Defense: In a heavily
populated, resource-constrained world, despots and imperialists will
inevitably arise. The easiest way to defend against attacks from these
tyrants is through political union. Federation can also work, but it's
harder and more tenuous, since both political will and defense
financing must be raised in each member country.
- Economies of Scale:
There's lots of evidence that there is no such thing, especially in
today's connected world, as 'economies of scale'. Bigger is as likely
to mean less efficient as more efficient. But even if such economies
are illusory, there remains a consensus that reaching a certain
'critical mass' allows delivery of services more cost-effectively per
capita, and as long as enough people believe it, it will constrain
balkanization. And it is true that the more governments you have
involved in projects like transportation, energy, and even social
policy and environmental protection, the harder the coordination gets.
- The 'Once You're So
Big You Might As Well Get Bigger' Rule: To be truly responsive to
individual people's needs, a government needs to be really
small and local. Is a state or provincial government looking after a
million people really any closer to the needs of its constituents than
a federal government looking after a hundred million? If not, the
argument goes, it would make more sense to get rid of state and
provincial governments than to devolve most political power to them. If
you're too big to look after a community, you might as well at least
exploit your size and get as big as possible. This is the argument for
some kind of loose 'global' government, and it's hard to dispute.
- Local Tin-pot
Dictators: In the days of hunter-gatherer cultures and even more
recently in pioneer settlements, communities were self-selected and
their members knew each other intimately. More recently, local
governments are often selected to represent disenchanted and
politically active minorities, and local power often goes almost by
default to those with ruthless ambition, wealth, or a propensity for
influence-peddling. The consequence is that the reputation of local
government is dreadful -- they tend to be even less representative of
the people than governments of larger political units, poorly trained
and skilled for the job, biased, corrupt, remote and inefficient.
Defense can be handled by coalitions and alliances, rather than
political union. But the myth of 'economies of scale' continues to have
a strong hold on progressives. I think it's the political creature in
all of us: If our community model is wonderful, surely expanding it so
it covers more people and more land and more resources would make it
even better. We all want our personal models of the right way to do
things to thrive, and we want to persuade others that ours are the best
models available. This is healthy -- it's how ideas spread and how we
learn from each other's successes and failures. But in today's
networked world it is no longer necessary, or wise, to 'grow'
infrastructure. We need to resist the impulse to push our 'best
practice' on others. Every community is capable of designing its own
best practices, and if they want help they can take advantage of the
astonishing communication and information resources available globally
now, to ask for it. But progressives are social creatures, and they
like to get together and build stuff, big
stuff built on big dreams. Progressives are also compulsive planners --
we like to think things through in advance, rather than charging ahead
and doing rapid prototyping and learning fast from our mistakes. And
we've been taught to believe getting together in larger and larger
groups and pooling resources is efficient, an economical application of
the division of labour.
But just because something is efficient doesn't mean it's better. We
could all design a better way for plants to produce energy and
reproduce, but why? Nature's extravagant and inefficient way works just
fine, and has the advantages of evolution by experimentation, and
robustness in the face of sudden change or adversity. Very efficient
systems tend to be inflexible, resistant to change, and fragile. So
even if there are 'economies of scale' (and that's debatable, but the
subject for a different article) doesn't mean that bigger and 'more
efficient' is desirable.
The 'Once You're So Big You Might As Well Get Bigger' argument is
perfectly valid, but defeatist. It assumes we simply will be unable to
make community-based political and economic structures work. It's the
argument for a strong UN, and it's a compelling one, but it's settling
for second best. As Singer says in giving qualified support for a
global super-government:
It
is widely believed that a world government would be, at best, an
unchecked bureaucratic behemoth that would make the bureaucracy of the
EU look lean and efficient. At worst, it would become a global tyranny,
unchecked and unchallengeable. These thoughts have to be taken
seriously. How to prevent global bodies becoming either dangerous
tyrannies or self-aggrandizing bureaucracies, and instead make them
effective and responsive to the people whose lives they affect? It is a
challenge that should not be beyond the best minds in the fields of
political science and public administration.
He's right, but it's a challenge that so far has been
beyond the best minds on our planet to solve. The reality is that
increasing size inexorably makes management harder, coordination more
difficult. Why work so hard for one extreme -- a global state -- when
the other extreme -- a world of autonomous networked tiny communities
-- is easier and better?
One pervasive progressive argument for centralization is that larger
political and economic entities can compensate for inequities between
communities. Is it fair if one community is affluent and healthy and
egalitarian, and the one next door poor, full of despair and disease,
and repressive and intolerant? Here is where the progressive ideology
gets most perverse. Progressives tend to be egalitarian and accept
responsibility for those less fortunate outside their communities. The
outpouring of support for tsunami victims reflects the preponderance of
such progressive thinking throughout the world. But as humanitarian
groups have pointed out, more children die from inexpensively
preventable diseases every week than died in the tsunami. Where are the
progressives in addressing this much greater, and simpler, need? Well,
the thinking goes, there's only so much we can do for other
communities. To some extent, unlike the victims of natural disasters,
the victims of chronic disease and violence should be taking more
responsibility in their own communities, and if we just give them
everything they'll never learn to look after themselves, it will be a
black hole sucking the resources out of us until we're all poor and
deprived. But these people do not have political power, they do not
have education, they live in ecological disaster areas and what
resources they do have are being stolen to repay their governments'
negligent or criminal debts to other nations. They are no more able to
do anything about their situation than the tsunami victims.
Progressives need to learn to do intelligent triage
with their generosity of time and resources. We need to acknowledge
that some parts of the world, like Kerala, India, are going to do well
even if we leave them entirely to their own resources. We need to
acknowledge that some parts of the world, like Haiti and Afghanistan,
are not going to do well no matter what we try to do for them. We
should only be throwing money and energy at them when and if the rest
of the world is doing well. What we need to do is focus on the middle
group, the areas, both inside and outside our own countries, where
investment of time and money will make all the difference in the world.
And then we need to focus even more, and choose among the alternative
ways we can help this middle group of areas. Some methods, like bombing
the country senseless to oust its leader, building giant prisons as the
'answer' to crime, and even airlifting food, are short-term solutions
that are of dubious long-term effect or value. The most valuable
assistance we can provide to most areas is education and expertise.
But a great deal of our expertise is not given, but sold to the third
world by Western corporations, which merely replaces a knowledge
deficit with a financial deficit. We should be requiring corporations,
as a condition of their corporate charters, to donate
without strings attached a small percentage of their time and profits
to teach and train and build infrastructure in any impoverished area,
domestic or international, of their choosing. Meanwhile, as
progressives, we should lobby governments to provide a tax credit to
individuals equal to out-of-pocket costs plus say, a flat $50/hour for
pure (non-religious, non-partisan, no strings attached) volunteer
activities to areas in need. Not a tax deduction just for cash donations, which is worth much more to the rich and worth nothing to the unemployed -- a tax credit that
reduces taxes payable and can be carried forward or even claimed as a
refund, worth exactly the same amount per hour spent and per dollar
contributed regardless of the donor's tax bracket or income.
This won't by itself make communities that are currently under-skilled,
under-resourced, dependent and poor into self-sufficient communities,
but it will be a step in the right direction, where current efforts and
energies and strings-attached 'investments' are not. Our current
physical communities are not ideal: they were mostly selected for us by
brokers, or singled out because of proximity to good schools, or
because it was the best we could afford, or picked for some other
reason that has nothing to do with the like-mindedness of the other
community residents. But you have to start somewhere. We should build
some Model Intentional Communities
to show people what is possible with a completely decentralized,
self-selected and self-reliant, sustainable community-based economy and
society. But then we need to start applying our learning and our energies to helping today's helpless and dysfunctional communities transform themselves into something close to that model ideal.
One step at a time. Learning from their many mistakes. Doing things
their own way. Horrendously inefficiently. Showing hands-on. Providing
examples and role-models. Failing and then getting up and trying again.
Answering the difficult questions. And when our work there is done, when they're doing it for themselves, leaving them alone and moving on to the next
community. For progressives, this hands-dirty, painstakingly slow
process will be agonizing. But it's the only way to undo the millennia
of dependence, ignorance, subjugation and hopelessness that have left
broken, ecologically devastated, economically and psychologically
depressed communities bereft of ability and racked by scarcity, where
once stood proud and diverse and capable and independent communities
amidst astonishing affluence.
It's the only way that works.
Image: Part of a community of snow geese in flight, from photographer TeeKay.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
